JesusisLord85:

Exodus 3
13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them?

14 And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.

15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, the Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations.


Does God change?

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord, I change not"

Wonder where Jehovah came from. Anywhere you see this name, the original would have said YHVH, which is popularly interpreted as Yahweh. I wonder who put Jehovah there. God can only have one name. Many adjectives to describe His greatness...But one name.

When I used to attend church. I always heard/sang "call on his name". But nobody ever bothered to tell me his name. Probably because were were singing "to the unknown God".

Jehovah is most popular way to pronounce it in english. Yahweh we could say is Hebrew, and we can take Jehovah as transliteration as it were.

JMAN05:

Jehovah is most popular way to pronounce it in english. Yahweh we could say is Hebrew, and we can take Jehovah as transliteration as it were.

His name is I AM. Anyway I can understand why you would want a transliteration of certain names. However, why would you want to alter the name of the Most High? If you can cal Sadam, Mugabi, Ghandi, I wonder how YHWH became Jehovah.

PastorAIO:

Mark 1:2 quote Isaiah the prophet in every translation of the bible except for One, namely, King James Version. It was deliberately changed in KJV because they were aware that Mark had got it wrong. Every other bible sticks true to what Mark says and so does every ancient manuscript that I am aware of.

Which brings us to a fine point that tallies with the subject of this thread. The matter of translations and their authenticity. If the translators of KJV can adjust the text to iron out what they perceive as errors then where else have they fiddled with the text to fit in with their agendas?

I have said from the onset of this thread that translations are not inerrant the autographs are. Below is a quote that answers your query.

"The prophets" or "Isaiah the prophet" in Mark 1:2?

The quotations in Mark 1:2-3 are from Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1. Thus, the correct reading should be "the prophets." Critics in support of the "Isaiah" reading point that it is supported by the oldest extant Greek uncial Codex Sinaiticus. However, Sinaiticus inserts "Isaiah" in Matthew 13:35, making the verse read, "that it might be fulfilled that was spoken through the prophet Isaiah, saying: I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things concealed from the foundation." However, the quote is from Psalm 78:2, not Isaiah. "Isaiah" in Matthew 13:35 of Sinaiticus is so obviously an error that all Bibles abandon the oldest manuscript, and follow the reading of later manuscripts. Seeing that Sinaiticus inserted "Isaiah" in Matthew 13:35, one could reasonably suspect that an Alexandrian scribe also inserted "Isaiah" in Mark 1:2. The reading, "the prophets" in Mark 1:2 is in Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century and also quoted by Iranaeus in the 2nd century (Against Heresies III 10:5).
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-prophets-or-isaiah-the-prophet-in-mark-12

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01.asp

OLAADEGBU:

I have said from the onset of this thread that translations are not inerrant the autographs are. Below is a quote that answers your query.

Even then this does not help your case as we do not have the Autographs. So therefore, nothing that we have today can be considered the inerrant text.

That quote you posted is nothing but pure speculation with next to no basis.

JesusisLord85:

His name is I AM. Anyway I can understand why you would want a transliteration of certain names. However, why would you want to alter the name of the Most High? If you can cal Sadam, Mugabi, Ghandi, I wonder how YHWH became Jehovah.

No one knows exactly how it is pronounced. In English, Jehovah is the first pronunciation derived from JHVH.

JMAN05:

No one knows exactly how it is pronounced. In English, Jehovah is the first pronunciation derived from JHVH.

Isn't that interesting.
I can understand why the real Israelites (our people) do not know the true pronunciation. It was prophesied he would cause us to forget.
But the Edomite christians of Rome, how did they forget? I thought their new religion was started by Paul and spread throughout the earth. Who would want to transliterate the name of the Most High.

Hmm. Devils

PastorAIO:

Even then this does not help your case as we do not have the Autographs. So therefore, nothing that we have today can be considered the inerrant text.

That quote you posted is nothing but pure speculation with next to no basis.

Question: "Does the inerrancy of the Bible only apply to the original manuscripts?"

Answer: This is truly a difficult issue to grasp. Only the original autographs (original manuscripts written by the apostles, prophets, etc.) are under the divine promise of inspiration and inerrancy. The books of the Bible, as they were originally written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), were 100% inerrant, accurate, authoritative, and true. There is no Biblical promise that copies of the original manuscripts would equally be inerrant or free from copyist errors. As the Bible has been copied thousands of times over thousands of years, some copyist errors have likely occurred.

How do we deal with this? First, it is important to remember that the biblical manuscripts we have today are in 99% agreement with one another. Yes, there are some minor differences, but the vast majority of the biblical text is identical from one manuscript to another. Most of the differences are in punctuation, word endings, minor grammatical issues, word order, etc. – issues easily explainable as scribal mistakes. No important theological or biblical issue is thrown into doubt by any supposed error or contradiction. Biblical manuscripts from the 15th century agree completely with manuscripts from the 3rd century. We can have absolute confidence that the Bible we have today is almost exactly identical to what the apostles and prophets wrote 2000+ years ago.

Second, we should not be quick to say “Oh, that is just a scribal error.” The vast majority, if not all, of Bible “errors” can be explained in a logical and believable manner. Those that cannot by explained, or are very difficult to explain – could very well have an answer that we simply do not know at this point. Just because we cannot find a solution does not mean that a solution doesn’t exist. Believing there to be a scribal error must be the absolute last resort in any supposed Bible “error.”

Ultimately, though, it is possible that errors have crept into our modern manuscripts and translations of the Bible. Copyists and translators are human beings and they make mistakes. The fact that the Bible is incredibly accurate is a testimony to its inspiration and preservation by God.

Can we still trust the Bible? Absolutely! The Bible translations we have today are God’s Word. The Bible today is just as authoritative as it was in the 1st century A.D. We can completely trust the Bible as being God’s message to us today. Yes, the biblical promises of inspiration and inerrancy only apply directly to the original manuscripts. That does not impact, though, whether our modern Bibles are accurate and authoritative. God’s Word endures forever, despite the occasional failings and mistakes of copyists and translators.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inerrancy.html#ixzz3ABc2AL1z

^ that website is Lies.Can you believe they actually said Jesus was born on dec 25th ! LOL

lepasharon:

^ that website is Lies.Can you believe they actually said Jesus was born on dec 25th ! LOL

You don't have to stretch the truth in order for you to make your point. Below is what the site said about Jesus' birthday.

http://www.gotquestions.org/December-25.html

Sarassin:

Yes, I believe that if you look closely at the sayings of Jesus and Rabbi Hillel (the elder) you will find that Jesus probably had a first class education at the feet of Hillel. The same cannot be said of Peter.

nowhere does scripture hint at this, actually the scriptures seem to portay as looked down upon. No tradition even hints such.

Sarassin:

The issue of Jude is very clear.

The Muratorian canon would have been in circulation roughly around 170CE as I mentioned earlier. It contains amongst others, the Epistle of Jude. 1 and 2 Peter are not contained. Indicating, either they were not written at the time, recently written as to not be included or considered forgeries. Your problem is quite obvious and huge, you seek to place the dating of 2 Peter within the lifetime of Peter who died around 65CE, don't waste your time....or mine.

or it simply means the writter of the fragment was simply ignorant of those books.

Ubenedictus: nowhere does scripture hint at this, actually the scriptures seem to portay as looked down upon. No tradition even hints such.

True, scripture does not hint at Jesus having studied under Hillel, but if you take a sampling of sayings by Jesus in comparison to Hillel you will find in many cases they are identical.

Ubenedictus:

or it simply means the writter of the fragment was simply ignorant of those books.

Quite plausible, but on the balance of probability I would say the author would be less likely to include the more obscure Jude as opposed to the writings of Peter the "Rock", just my opinion.

OLAADEGBU:

"Every Valley."

The Album of the New Young Messiah. Every Valley sang by soloist sang by Larnelle Harris, as sang in CD in 1993.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGJMqqjxlvo

" Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain." -- Isaiah 40:4

https://www.nairaland.com/983855/new-young-messiah

Larnelle Harris, a soloist, renders this Modern Version of 'Every Valley' from Handel's Messiah.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k38KbHqiTdQ

A rendition of Scripture songs as composed by Handel but modified and updated to the 21st century:

" Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."

-- Isaiah 40:4

Question: "Why is it important to believe in biblical inerrancy?"

Answer: We live in a time that tends to shrug its shoulders when confronted with error. Instead of asking, like Pilate, “What is truth?” postmodern man says, “Nothing is truth” or perhaps “There is truth, but we cannot know it.” We’ve grown accustomed to being lied to, and many people seem comfortable with the false notion that the Bible, too, contains errors.

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy is an extremely important one because the truth does matter. This issue reflects on the character of God and is foundational to our understanding of everything the Bible teaches. Here are some reasons why we should absolutely believe in biblical inerrancy:

1. The Bible itself claims to be perfect. “And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times” (Psalm 12:6). “The law of the Lord is perfect” (Psalm 19:7). “Every word of God is pure” (Proverbs 30:5 KJV). These claims of purity and perfection are absolute statements. Note that it doesn’t say God’s Word is “mostly” pure or scripture is “nearly” perfect. The Bible argues for complete perfection, leaving no room for “partial perfection” theories.

2. The Bible stands or falls as a whole. If a major newspaper were routinely discovered to contain errors, it would be quickly discredited. It would make no difference to say, “All the errors are confined to page three.” For a paper to be reliable in any of its parts, it must be factual throughout. In the same way, if the Bible is inaccurate when it speaks of geology, why should its theology be trusted? It is either a trustworthy document, or it is not.

3. The Bible is a reflection of its Author. All books are. The Bible was written by God Himself as He worked through human authors in a process called “inspiration.” “All scripture is God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16). See also 2 Peter 1:21 and Jeremiah 1:2.

We believe that the God who created the universe is capable of writing a book. And the God who is perfect is capable of writing a perfect book. The issue is not simply “Does the Bible have a mistake?” but “Can God make a mistake?” If the Bible contains factual errors, then God is not omniscient and is capable of making errors Himself. If the Bible contains misinformation, then God is not truthful but is instead a liar. If the Bible contains contradictions, then God is the author of confusion. In other words, if biblical inerrancy is not true, then God is not God.

4. The Bible judges us, not vice versa. “For the word of God...judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12). Notice the relationship between “the heart” and “the Word.” The Word examines; the heart is being examined. To discount parts of the Word for any reason is to reverse this process. We become the examiners, and the Word must submit to our “superior insight.” Yet God says, “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?” (Romans 9:20).

5. The Bible’s message must be taken as a whole. It is not a mixture of doctrine that we are free to select from. Many people like the verses that say God loves them, but they dislike the verses that say God will judge sinners. But we simply cannot pick and choose what we like about the Bible and throw the rest away. If the Bible is wrong about hell, for example, then who is to say it is right about heaven—or about anything else? If the Bible cannot get the details right about creation, then maybe the details about salvation cannot be trusted either. If the story of Jonah is a myth, then perhaps so is the story of Jesus. On the contrary, God has said what He has said, and the Bible presents us a full picture of who God is. “Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens” (Psalm 119:89).

6. The Bible is our only rule for faith and practice. If it is not reliable, then on what do we base our beliefs? Jesus asks for our trust, and that includes trust in what He says in His Word. John 6:67-69 is a beautiful passage. Jesus had just witnessed the departure of many who had claimed to follow Him. Then He turns to the twelve apostles and asks, “You do not want to leave too, do you?” At this, Peter speaks for the rest when he says, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” May we have the same trust in the Lord and in His words of life.

None of what we have presented here should be taken as a rejection of true scholarship. Biblical inerrancy does not mean that we are to stop using our minds or accept what the Bible says blindly. We are commanded to study the Word (2 Timothy 2:15), and those who search it out are commended (Acts 17:11). Also, we recognize that there are difficult passages in the Bible, as well as sincere disagreements over interpretation. Our goal is to approach Scripture reverently and prayerfully, and when we find something we do not understand, we pray harder, study more, and—if the answer still eludes us—humbly acknowledge our own limitations in the face of the perfect Word of God.

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-inerrancy.html#ixzz3B8RrcU96

Sarassin:

Quite plausible, but on the balance of probability I would say the author would be less likely to include the more obscure Jude as opposed to the writings of Peter the "Rock", just my opinion.

this isn't a matter of who wrote what book... The issue is clear from the writting of the early church fathers that some books circulated slower than others 2pt and even revelations just to name a few.


Till this date the Russian orthodox church doesn't read the book of revelation in liturgy, not because it wasn't writting by the apostle john but because it didn't circulate to the russian church.

Ubenedictus:

this isn't a matter of who wrote what book... The issue is clear from the writting of the early church fathers that some books circulated slower than others 2pt and even revelations just to name a few.


Till this date the Russian orthodox church doesn't read the book of revelation in liturgy, not because it wasn't writting by the apostle john but because it didn't circulate to the russian church.

It would be more apt to state that some texts were more readilly accepted than others. 1 and 2 Peter for instance are more "Pauline" in tone and nature, they fit nothing that we know about Peter from better sources. The Apocalypse of John has its own fair share of controversy, as you well know, Eusebius had his own reservations about its apostolic authorship and Jerome outrightly relegated it. It is these controversies that likely led to these works being ciculated slower....

OLAADEGBU:

Larnelle Harris, a soloist, renders this Modern Version of 'Every Valley' from Handel's Messiah.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k38KbHqiTdQ

A rendition of Scripture songs as composed by Handel but modified and updated to the 21st century:

" Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain."

-- Isaiah 40:4

"And The Glory of the Lord."
- Sandi Patty from 'the New Young Messiah'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9g-IB0mbGI

A rendition of Scripture songs as composed by Handel but modified and updated to the 21st century:

"And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it."

-- Isaiah 40:5

Sarassin:

It would be more apt to state that some texts were more readilly accepted than others. 1 and 2 Peter for instance are more "Pauline" in tone and nature, they fit nothing that we know about Peter from better sources. The Apocalypse of John has its own fair share of controversy, as you well know, Eusebius had his own reservations about its apostolic authorship and Jerome outrightly relegated it. It is these controversies that likely led to these works being ciculated slower....

would you like to present the relevant traditions?

O Thou that Tellest Good Tidings to Zion


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL31xlG9Qhk

"O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion, get thee up on a high mountain; O thou that tellest good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold, your God!" -- Isaiah 40:9 (American Standard Version)

"Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee!" -- Isaiah 60:1

Ubenedictus:
would you like to present the relevant traditions?

I would be happy to oblige if you clarify what you are asking of me.

"He Shall Feed His Flock."
- Steven Curtis Chapman and Sandi Patty from the New Young Messiah Tour, 1994.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRagPpYTkIA

"He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." -- Isaiah 40:11

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." -- Matthew 11::28-30

Sarassin:

I would be happy to oblige if you clarify what you are asking of me.

sorry, i mean i'll like you to provide quotes from the church fathers you mentioned to prove your point.

Il like to say that God did inspire all these men thru time and space.

Now if all of them were educated men, today we would even doubt further that it was a crafted book. But God chose men with low/ without education and the way it was written/ accuracy and also fufillments shows that they werent writing with their own fingers, something was definitely moving them-God's Spirit. Paul and Luke were the only two educated in d new testament. So inspiration is so so sure.




And as for differenr versions. We all know monetary gain is the priority by those doing it. One of the top publishers of one of the versions we have today died a drug addict. So acceptability.... KJV

Ubenedictus:

sorry, i mean i'll like you to provide quotes from the church fathers you mentioned to prove your point.

Certainly, if you excuse the length of my post.

With regards to the apocalypse of John;

Eusebius wrote that in his day (early 4th century) in the Eastern church the status of the Book of Revelation was in dispute;

H.E 3.24.17,18

17. But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times. But the other two are disputed.
18. In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still divided. But at the proper time this question likewise shall be decided from the testimony of the ancients.

Eusebius also informs there were two tombs in Ephesus both identified as John's. In Eusebius' view, this pointed to the conclusion that there were two men in Ephesus by the name of John, the apostle and John the elder.

H.E.3.39.6

6. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John’s It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John

Eusebius also records Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria’s observations that there were significant differences between the Gospel of John and the letters on the one hand, and the Book of Revelation, on the other, too many, in his opinion, to allow for the attribution of authorship to John.

The reasons for the objections to the acceptance of the book of revelations were not merely doubts about apostolic authorship, there were other considerations too, for instance;

The Synod of Laodicea rejected the book and did not list it among their canon. St.Cyril of Jerusalem, (Bishop of Jerusalem) produced a canon list similar to that of the Laodicean council and advised in his catechetical Lectures, iv. 33-37, that “the omission of Revelation from his list is due to a general reaction against this book in the east after excessive use was made of it by the Montanist cults”.

(As a digression) Montanism, also known as the Cataphrygian Heresy and the New Prophecy, was a heretical movement that arose in the Christian Church in Asia Minor, in the 2nd century. Led by Montanus, it relied heavily on the symbolism and allegory of the Book of revelations, one could say it was the fore-runner of modern day spiritual churches, millennial end-time teachings and material well-being. Their practices included “falling into trances to begin to prophesy under the influence of the spirit”, Montanus also claimed to be the voice of the Holy Spirit. It flourished in the West, principally under the leadership of Tertullian in the 3rd century. Finally the Bishops of Asia Minor gathered in synods and finally excommunicated the Montanists around 177CE

The reformist Martin Luther in his “Preface to the Revelation of St. John” was adamant in rejecting the book, stating “I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”

The Catholic Encyclopaedia tells us about St. Jerome. "in the West the Church persevered in its tradition of apostolic authorship. St. Jerome alone seemed to have been influenced by the doubts of the East".

Authorship disputes were quite clear, in addition to theological disputes, cheers.

Sarassin:

Certainly, if you excuse the length of my post.

With regards to the apocalypse of John;

Eusebius wrote that in his day (early 4th century) in the Eastern church the status of the Book of Revelation was in dispute;

H.E 3.24.17,18

17. But of the writings of John, not only his Gospel, but also the former of his epistles, has been accepted without dispute both now and in ancient times. But the other two are disputed.
18. In regard to the Apocalypse, the opinions of most men are still divided. But at the proper time this question likewise shall be decided from the testimony of the ancients.

this simply say opinions are divided, this particular quote doesn't say anything about authorship

H.E.3.39.6

6. This shows that the statement of those is true, who say that there were two persons in Asia that bore the same name, and that there were two tombs in Ephesus, each of which, even to the present day, is called John’s It is important to notice this. For it is probable that it was the second, if one is not willing to admit that it was the first that saw the Revelation, which is ascribed by name to John

this deals with authorship but seem hardly definitive

Eusebius also records Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria’s observations that there were significant differences between the Gospel of John and the letters on the one hand, and the Book of Revelation, on the other, too many, in his opinion, to allow for the attribution of authorship to John.

you didnt provide the quote

The reasons for the objections to the acceptance of the book of revelations were not merely doubts about apostolic authorship, there were other considerations too, for instance;

The Synod of Laodicea rejected the book and did not list it among their canon. St.Cyril of Jerusalem, (Bishop of Jerusalem) produced a canon list similar to that of the Laodicean council and advised in his catechetical Lectures, iv. 33-37, that “the omission of Revelation from his list is due to a general reaction against this book in the east after excessive use was made of it by the Montanist cults”.

ok
and i know of montanism, the digression made ur post pretty long

The reformist Martin Luther in his “Preface to the Revelation of St. John” was adamant in rejecting the book, stating “I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.”

The Catholic Encyclopaedia tells us about St. Jerome. "in the West the Church persevered in its tradition of apostolic authorship. St. Jerome alone seemed to have been influenced by the doubts of the East".

luther has an interesting number of grey books.

Authorship disputes were quite clear, in addition to theological disputes, cheers.

so i have finished picking hairs...

I have to agree that authorship played a part in the non acceptance of some books, though i'm a bit suprised that the quotes you presented hardly seem definitive.

Ubenedictus

so i have finished picking hairs...

I have to agree that authorship played a part in the non acceptance of some books, though i'm a bit suprised that the quotes you presented hardly seem definitive.

All well and good. The premise was to highlight doubts about authorship of some books of the NT, the book of revelations being one. Proving the book is forged or pseudonymous is another issue entirely. You can see the disposition of Dionysius at[i] H.E. 7.25[/i] for more definitive reasoning behind his doubts. I left that out for brevity.

OLAADEGBU:

"He Shall Feed His Flock."
- Steven Curtis Chapman and Sandi Patty from the New Young Messiah Tour, 1994.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRagPpYTkIA

"He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young." -- Isaiah 40:11

"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light." -- Matthew 11::28-30

Isaiah's prophecy is as fresh as tomorrow's newspaper.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mESAEMTQ6J0

OLAADEGBU:

O Thou that Tellest Good Tidings to Zion


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UL31xlG9Qhk

"O thou that tellest good tidings to Zion, get thee up on a high mountain; O thou that tellest good tidings to Jerusalem, lift up thy voice with strength; lift it up, be not afraid; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold, your God!" -- Isaiah 40:9 (American Standard Version)

"Arise, shine; for thy light is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee!" -- Isaiah 60:1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkLU_yuMI24

Is the Bible still inerrant after translation?

"Surely he hath Borne our griefs."
- Steve Green, Larnelle Harris and Michael English.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc0EL7JyvQc

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

-- Isaiah 53:4-5

OLAADEGBU:


"Surely he hath Borne our griefs."
- Steve Green, Larnelle Harris and Michael English.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc0EL7JyvQc

"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

-- Isaiah 53:4-5

Isaiah 53:4-5 relived and remixed in this classical song.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3FifIOnovg